alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# America the beautiful: South Carolina

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  America the beautiful: South Carolina 
                    -           Alternative Title        
                    -  Coastal bermudagrass pasture and baled hay, Barnwell soil and water conservation district 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Department of Agriculture 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1960-1970 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Country        
                    -  United States 
                    -           State        
                    -  South Carolina 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  150 × 60 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at The University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  A57.8-2.So8c.jpg 
                    -           OCLC Collection Number        
                    -  429489521 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
#### George Borgfeldt Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 7606.

Entry Nos. 711991; 748478.

— Invoices dated Stoke on Trent, England, September 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 14, 1944, etc.

(Decided June 24, 1948)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This proceeding has been submitted upon a stipulation wherein the parties hereto have agreed that the issues involved in the reappraise-ments listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, are the same in all material respects as in the case of *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334. The record in that case was admitted as part of the record herein.

In view of the aforesaid stipulation and accepting same as a statement of fact, and in view of the decision cited, I find and hold that the export values of the merchandise are the values found by the appraiser, less any additions on entry by the importers by reason of advances by the appraiser in similar cases to equal the so-called British purchase tax.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 10.9


 


Via Federal Express and electronic mail


 


May 3, 2018


 


Chairman & CEO


Tom Lin, MD, PhD


Lin Bioscience, Inc.


12F., No. 68, Sec 5, Zhongxiao E. Road, Xinyi Dist.,


Taipei City 110, Taiwan (R.O.C.)


 


Re: Exclusive License Agreement between The Trustees of Columbia
University in the City of New York ("Columbia") and Lin Bioscience, Inc. ("LBS"), dated September 13, 2016 ("License
Agreement")


 


Dear Dr. Lin,


 


It is our understanding that LBS is in the process of restructuring
and is requesting Columbia's approval for the following assignments of the License Agreement: (i) the assignment by LBS of all of its
rights, title, interest, and obligations in and to the License Agreement to its wholly owned Cayman subsidiary Lin BioScience International
Ltd ("LBS KY1") (the "First Assignment"), and (ii) the assignment by LBS KY1 of all of its rights, title, interest,
and obligations in and to the License Agreement to its wholly owned Cayman subsidiary Lin BioScience Co., Ltd. ("LBS KY2") (the
 "Second Assignment"). The restructuring and the First Assignment and Second Assignment are illustrated and summarized in Exhibit
A hereto, which you have kindly provided to us.


 


You have advised us that in the First Assignment, LBS KY1 will assume
and perform all of LBS's duties, obligations and responsibilities under the License Agreement and that in the Second Assignment, LBS KY2
will assume and perform all of LBS KY1's duties, obligations and responsibilities under the License Agreement.


 


Columbia hereby consents to the First Assignment and the Second Assignment
as described herein. Upon the date that the two subscription agreements for this restructuring are executed, LBS KY2 shall be substituted
for LBS in all respects under the License Agreement and LBS KY2 (i) shall assume all duties, obligations and responsibilities under the
License Agreement and (ii) shall be entitled to enforce any and all rights and benefits arising under the License Agreement.


 






    


     


    

 


	 	Sincerely, 
	 	 
	 	/s/ Scot Hamilton 
	 	
    Scot Hamilton, Director

    Columbia Technology Ventures,

    Pursuant to the Delegation of Authority

    to Sign Documents on behalf of

    Columbia University Letter, Dated July 1,

    2017, after complying with all requirements therein for exercise of
    such authority.




 


Cc: Irene Wang


 






    


     


    

 


LBS restructuring & assignment


 


Current Structure


 


 






    


     


    

 


LBS restructuring & assignment


 


Step 1


 


 






    


     


    

 


LBS restructuring & assignment


 


Step 2


 





 






    


     


    

 


LBS restructuring & assignment


 


Final Structure
ex_10-1.htm


    
      

    

    
      

    

    Exhibit
10.1

     

     

    Amendment
No. 1 to Loan Agreement

     

    This
Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment”) to the Loan Agreement dated June 25, 2007
(“Agreement”) is made and entered into on August 22, 2008, by and between Vault
Technology, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Maker”), and Caelum Finance Ltd.
(“Lender”).

     

    1.    Terms
of Loan. The Maker and the Lender hereby agree that “Section 2.5 Security”
shall be included in the Agreement as set forth herein:

     

    “2.5
Security.  The
Loan shall be fully secured by the Wollaston East Claims MPP 1253 and MPP 1255
(“Property”), and in the event of Default, transfer of the Property to Lender
shall be available as a remedy to the Lender to satisfy Maker’s indebtedness if
not otherwise repaid.”

     

    2.    Entire
Agreement.  This Amendment constitutes the final, complete, and
exclusive agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter
hereof and supersedes all prior oral and written, and all contemporaneous oral
negotiations, agreements, and understandings. This Amendment may be amended only
by an instrument in writing which expressly refers to this Agreement and
specifically states that such instrument is intended to amend this Amendment and
is signed on behalf of both parties.

     

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Amendment on the date specified
in the preamble of this Amendment.

     

    
      
        	 	Vault
      Technology, Inc.  	 	 	 	Caelum
      Finance Ltd.	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
                /s/
      Randy White  

              	 	 	By:	
                /s/
      Constantine Carmichel

              	 
	Its:	
                Randy
      White

                President  

              	 	 	Its:	
                Constantine
      Carmichel

                President
EXHIBIT 12.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Gregory Zikos, certify that:

|  
|--
|1.
|  
|2.
|  
|3.
|  
|4.

|  
|--
|a.
|  
|b.
|  
|c.

|  
|--
|5.

|  
|--
|a.
|  
|b.

Dated: March 22, 2011

|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Gregory Zikos      
|Name:  |  | Gregory Zikos          
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer



---
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION OF 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the Quarterly Report of Texas Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Richard M. Fowler, Executive Vice President-Finance of the Company, hereby certify that to
my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                                                               
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: January 4, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Richard M. Fowler                                         
|                       |  |  |  | Richard M. Fowler                                             
|                       |  |  |  | Executive Vice President - Finance and Chief
Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Texas Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Texas Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES




                                                    Three months ended March 31,
                                                          1998           1997
                                                    (Dollar amounts in millions)

Fixed charges:
     Interest and debt expense                         $   122.7     $   104.9
     One-third of rental expense                             8.7           9.0
     Dividends declared on preferred
         securities issued by affiliates                    13.6          14.1
                                                       ---------     ---------
         Total                                         $   145.0     $   128.0
                                                       =========     =========

Earnings:
     Net income                                        $   169.4     $   153.7
     Provision for income taxes                             41.4          75.2
     Fixed charges                                         145.0         127.9
                                                       ---------     ---------
         Total                                         $   355.8     $   356.8
                                                       =========     =========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                          2.45          2.79
                                                       =========     =========
A90A0365.

#### BOWERS v. THE STATE.

(394 SE2d 141)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant Bowers appeals his conviction of the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. *Held:*

1. The attention of a patrolling police officer was directed by the outcry of a private citizen to two individuals standing together beside a building. After the officer illuminated the area with the spotlight on his patrol car, the two individuals separated and started to walk away until ordered to stop. Subsequently, the officer observed one of the individuals, defendant Bowers, drop four small plastic bags containing crack cocaine to the ground.

“On appeal the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution. *August v. State,*180 Ga. App. 510 (1) (349 SE2d 532) (1986).” *Marks v. State,*192 Ga. App. 64 (1) (383 SE2d 626). While mere possession of a controlled substance without more will not serve as the basis for a conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, the evidence of the controlled substance in this case being packaged in a manner commonly associated with the sale or distribution of such contraband would authorize any rational trier of fact to infer that defendant possessed crack cocaine, a controlled substance, with intent to distribute. See *Wright v. State,*154 Ga. App. 400, 401 (1), 402 (268 SE2d 378). The evidence was sufficient to meet the standard of proof required by *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560).

2. The arresting officer testified that he picked up the bags of contraband from where they had been dropped by defendant and placed them in a brown property envelope which he marked with the case number, defendant’s name, a list of the contents, and the officer’s name and payroll number. The arresting officer delivered the envelope to the police property room. Another police officer received the envelope from the property room, transported it to the State crime laboratory, and gave it to the chemist who conducted the identification test on the substance therein.

Defendant contends that the State has failed to establish the chain of custody due to a combination of three factors, the failure to provide receipts at the delivery of the property to the crime labora*523tory, the lack of evidence concerning security of the police property room and a discrepancy in the testimony as to the case number. However, the State has demonstrated with reasonable certainty that the cocaine introduced into evidence was the substance in the plastic bags dropped by defendant and after considering each of defendant’s contentions we find nothing which raises a suspicion of tampering. It was proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt remains go to its weight. *Mutcherson v. State,*179 Ga. App. 114 (345 SE2d 661); *Shrader v. State,*159 Ga. App. 522, 524 (2) (284 SE2d 37).

Decided May 4, 1990.

C. *Jackson Burch,*for appellant.

*Spencer Lawton, Jr., District Attorney, John E. Morse, Jr., Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carley, C. J., and Sognier, J., concur.*
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dr. John House, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of USMD Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2014; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 29, 2015 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ John House                                   
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | John House, M.D.                                 
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly Report ofTodhunter International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedMarch 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (this “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) theinformation contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition of the Company as of March 31, 2004 and its results ofoperations for the  period ended March31, 2004.

 
|   |   /s/  Ezra Shashoua                       |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Ezra Shashoua                                        |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Date:  May 12, 2004

 

----
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

                In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Torotel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period endingJanuary 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Dale H. Sizemore, Jr., Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)       The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2)       The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Dale H. Sizemore, Jr. |
|---------------------------|
|                      |
| Dale H. Sizemore, Jr.     |
| Chief Executive Officer   |
| April 28, 2005            |

 

----
# C_2008259EN.01000502.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 259/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 259/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5051 — APW/GMG/EMAP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 259/03)

On 7 March 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5051. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5051. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
No. 46843.

#### Protest 68178-K of Gibson Thomsen Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of clothes brushes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Heinrich, Herrmann & Weiss*(26 C. C. P. A. 292, C. A. D. 30) the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1506 was sustained.
No. 40303.

#### Protests 711704-G (A), etc., of Akawo & Co., Ltd., et al. (San Francisco, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 76-95.

#### Hernandez *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
(V. D. 6)

#### Hughes Fawcett, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 731504, etc.

(Decided April 8, 1954)

*Lone, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

This is a valuation proceeding which arose by virtue of judgments issued by the second division of this court in the cases of *Hughes Fawcett, Inc.*v. *United States,*29 Cust. Ct. 1, C. D. 1434, and *id.*v. *id.,*30 Cust. Ct. .347, Abstract 57082, wherein the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).

Counsel for the parties to this proceeding have stipulated and agreed as follows:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between counsel for plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the Court, concerning the merchandise covered by the remands of protests listed above, as follows:

1. Said merchandise consists of certain so-called heel serts, together with nails and templates, imported packed in printed paper envelopes, which, in *HUGHES FAWCETT, INC.*v. *UNITED STATES,*C. D. 1434, this Court held to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of articles.

2. At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, the foreign value of such or similar merchandise being no higher, being as follows in English pounds sterling, net packed:

> Heel serts_4 ¿hillings one-half pence per gross pairs;

> Nails_4hi pence per gross pairs of heel serts;

> *542Templates_4 pence per gross pairs of heel serts;

> Envelopes_9 pence per gross pairs of heel serts;

> less *5%*cash discount, less non-dutiable charges as entered.

3. That the above listed cases may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the merchandise covered by the remands of protests enumerated in schedule A, attached to and forming part of this decision, and that such value is as follows:

> English pounds sterling, net packed—

> Heel serts_4 shillings and J4 pence per gross pairs,

> Nails_4K pence per gross pairs of heel serts,

> Templates_4 pence per gross pairs of heel serts,

> Envelopes_9 pence per gross pairs of heel serts,

> Less 5 percent cash discount, less nondutiable charges as entered.

I further find such values to be the proper dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Before the First Division,

November 22, 1949

No. 53730.

protests 995568-G, etc. (New York).

#### Associated Merchandising Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.